The U.S. Marine Corps, responding to reports from their troops, are investigating whether they should replace the current 66 grain bullet, used in the 5.56mm round fired by the M-16 and M-4 rifle, with a heavier bullet. Since last Summer, the marines have been making the heavier, 77 grain bullet (normally only issued to Force Recon and commando troops) available to commanders, to use in place of the rounds with the 66 grain bullet. However, only six percent of the 10.6 million 5,56mm rounds of ammo the marines have in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the heavier 77 grain version. The debate over the effectiveness of the NATO standard 66 grain bullet (and all 5.56mm) ammo has been going on for decades, and has only intensified since 2002 (when it was used a lot in Afghanistan). The marines and the army are working together on the problem, and will present their findings early next year.

Many in the U.S. Army are in favor of using a larger caliber bullet (7.62mm, as used in sniper rifles like the M-14), or a 6.8mm round. The problem with the 5.56mm round was that it was not designed to take down man sized targets (or animal equivalents like white tailed deer, or black bears), and is less effective in blasting through walls and vehicles during urban fighting. When first introduced, it was intended for use by draftees, who were often in need of automatic fire capability (because so few were marksmen). This meant troops had to be able to carry more ammo, thus the utility of the 5.56mm round. The 5.56mm bullet could wound, or kill with a head or torso shot. But a determined enemy was often not stopped by 5.56mm fire. Today, all the infantry are volunteers, much better trained to hit targets with single shots, and increasingly demanding a bigger bullet for doing that.

The U.S. Marine Corps, responding to reports from their troops, are investigating whether they should replace the current 66 grain bullet, used in the 5.56mm round fired by the M-16 and M-4 rifle, with a heavier bullet. Since last Summer, the marines have been making the heavier, 77 grain bullet (normally only issued to Force Recon and commando troops) available to commanders, to use in place of the rounds with the 66 grain bullet. However, only six percent of the 10.6 million 5,56mm rounds of ammo the marines have in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the heavier 77 grain version. The debate over the effectiveness of the NATO standard 66 grain bullet (and all 5.56mm) ammo has been going on for decades, and has only intensified since 2002 (when it was used a lot in Afghanistan). The marines and the army are working together on the problem, and will present their findings early next year.

Many in the U.S. Armyare in favor of using a larger caliber bullet (7.62mm, as used in sniper rifles like the M-14), or a 6.8mm round. The problem with the 5.56mm round was that it was not designed to take down man sized targets (or animal equivalents like white tailed deer, or black bears), and is less effective in blasting through walls and vehicles during urban fighting. When first introduced, it was intended for use by draftees, who were often in need of automatic fire capability (because so few were marksmen). This meant troops had to be able to carry more ammo, thus the utility of the 5.56mm round. The 5.56mm bullet could wound, or kill with a head or torso shot. But a determined enemy was often not stopped by 5.56mm fire. Today, all the infantry are volunteers, much better trained to hit targets with single shots, and increasingly demanding a bigger bullet for doing that.

Source please? CNN?, NY Times?, Newsweek?

Some serious BS going on here - who wrote it ,and what were His/Her sources???

10.6 millions rounds of 5.56........... tons o fun for years if I could get my hands on that much ammo. It's like a wet dream. ETA: If my 0200 math skills are up to par you could shoot 64.5 30 rnders everyday for 15 years, I need to seriously start stock piling........

Irregardless, the article didn't seem very informative and quite a few errors.

If at first you don't succeed, failure might just be your thing.Rest in Peace Dad. 27Jan1954-12Nov2005

From what is being discussed by our men in the fight, it appears that the issue is not that the 5.56 in any weight fails to cause mortal wounds when the initial impact is to a lightly clad human torso. The problem is that it is not a tool in the sense that does not adequately penetrate intermediate barriers such as heavy clothing, armor, car bodies, steel shutters, heavy wooden doors and the like and still have the puissance to complete the intended task.

There are many factors at work which will continue to provide grist for many minds, but my pet idea is that we should have adopted .276 Pederson in 1932. We might very well still be using it, as it answers all the needs for today's battlefield, and many of those in between. Alas, as chief of staff, MacAurthur killed it with a penstroke. Perhaps an M14, Galil or FAL variant in .276 Pederson might be just the ticket.

Consider this: It has a .284, 140-grain bullet with the BCE nearly that of a Grendel, the taper necessary for AK reliability, a heavy rim for the same, and it has the range and a better flight plan than 7.62 NATO. You could stack 22 or more in a 20-round length magazine. Mild recoil, good penetration, good residual energy beyond the barrier, and a highly visible tracer: What's not to like?

What ever happened to the blended metal round that a contractor used on an insurgent last year.The bullet hit him in the ass and destroyed everything inside him on his left side.The story was on this site.Screw the hague convention lets have an 80 grain hollowpoint purposely designed to fragment at what ever velocity..im sure the technology is there for that.

Originally Posted By pun:What ever happened to the blended metal round that a contractor used on an insurgent last year.The bullet hit him in the ass and destroyed everything inside him on his left side.The story was on this site.Screw the hague convention lets have an 80 grain hollowpoint purposely designed to fragment at what ever velocity..im sure the technology is there for that.

I believe that turned out to be more hype than reality. LeMas or something along those lines.

This came from Strategy Page, which is a defense and security news web page, run mostly by a former Army Spc., and war gamer/simulation expert. There are several contributing writers, plus a small staff of interns IIRC. The interns are the probable cause of the bizarre 66 gr. reference.

That said, don't knock the source out of hand...the analysis, while frequently riddled with typos, is pretty solid in my view. The news tends to be told with an eye toward history, which results in oftentimes interesting perspectives. You'll have to read it to decide for yourself. I personally think many of the articles there would spawn great debates in this forum.

Originally Posted By pun:What ever happened to the blended metal round that a contractor used on an insurgent last year.The bullet hit him in the ass and destroyed everything inside him on his left side.The story was on this site.Screw the hague convention lets have an 80 grain hollowpoint purposely designed to fragment at what ever velocity..im sure the technology is there for that.

I believe that turned out to be more hype than reality. LeMas or something along those lines.

Don't know one way or the other, but another motivation behind not pushing that type of bullet could be a similar one for keeping quiet about stuff like thermobaric rockets and bombs--they could very well be just a nasty as claimed--which could be a problem, if the rest of our organization is not equipped to deal with their 'novel' effects yet. And by that I mean, our technology could very quickly exceed the limits of our medical experts to fix it. Why encourage others to adopt our methods if we aren't prepared to deal with them ourselves? In the case of thermobarics, I understand there isn't anything you can do. Interesting years ahead for the warfighter....

With the BS ROE that some places and units have imposed it doesn't matter what the hell is in our guns. Deal with the political crap first. I'm talking about guys being told to wait and not fire when they have the guys setting up a mortar in their sights, including the guys who are loaded with 7.62 match ammo. Requiring permission from somwhere around batallion or even brigade level to use the cannon on a Bradley. Maybe because it just Anaconda though.

These are only second hand reports from buddies who were there. I was somplace safer and nicer, which was good 'cause some of the ROE I would have loosely interpreted. We were told that if a person jumped our wall (and this was like the innermost of 6 layers) with a gun we probably wouldn't be justified in shooting him unless it was pointed at someone. Yeah right. Of course that was from the interpretation of the unit we replaced and it may have even been what their co got from the ADA COL who ran the place then.

At any rate, if the shooter does what he needs to and hits the person, the rounds aren't bad. Of course the shooter also needs to be allowed to shoot in the first place.

Given the limitations of bullets period to reliably pentrate barriers, car bodies, Heavy doors, Masonry, etc. The troops would be well served by a light weight high velocity AP and HE type round such as a 20mm in the form similar to a M203. IMHO anyway I know they have experimented with a 20mm type rd. I guess it got axed. Our troops need a reliable set of weapons to fill this void.

The only weapon we had when I was in that filled this role was the M2 .50 cal MG man that is a sweet weapon. granted no HE for it but it will definetly penetrate buildings. Yea I know it is not single man portable. still an effective weapon. YMMV

Fact: The M855 in the 1/7 twist M4bbl is not a great performer. I did not say it didn't perform, I said not great. Reports like this came back from Somalia. Out of the 20"bbl it works better.

Fact: M855 is poor in the accuracy dept. out of the 1/12 twist. Try it in an SP1 and you'll notice the difference. I have passed up good deals on surplus ammo because at the time I only had my SP1.

Fact: M193 is poor in the accuracy dept. out of the 1/7 twist. I have seen this first hand when M855 was going to deployed FMF units and the last of the M193 was being shot up for Quals. Marines still got expert, but across the board aggregate scores were down.

Fact: Nobody gets to shoot as much live ammo anymore. I fired more live ammo as an Air Force Security Forces Reservist than I did as an Active Duty Marine 0311. That needs to change first.

We need some good, solid testing with multiple weights and twists, and figure out the best combination. 1/9 seems to have the edge here, but lets spend a few bucks and find out for sure.

Today we are in the sandbox, tomorrow we may be in rice paddies, jungle or snow covered mountains. If one size dont fit all, we damn well better have a back up.

Originally Posted By Orion67:Fact: The M855 in the 1/7 twist M4bbl is not a great performer. I did not say it didn't perform, I said not great. Reports like this came back from Somalia. Out of the 20"bbl it works better.

Fact: M855 is poor in the accuracy dept. out of the 1/12 twist. Try it in an SP1 and you'll notice the difference. I have passed up good deals on surplus ammo because at the time I only had my SP1.

Fact: M193 is poor in the accuracy dept. out of the 1/7 twist. I have seen this first hand when M855 was going to deployed FMF units and the last of the M193 was being shot up for Quals. Marines still got expert, but across the board aggregate scores were down.

Fact: Nobody gets to shoot as much live ammo anymore. I fired more live ammo as an Air Force Security Forces Reservist than I did as an Active Duty Marine 0311. That needs to change first.

We need some good, solid testing with multiple weights and twists, and figure out the best combination. 1/9 seems to have the edge here, but lets spend a few bucks and find out for sure.

Today we are in the sandbox, tomorrow we may be in rice paddies, jungle or snow covered mountains. If one size dont fit all, we damn well better have a back up.

I shoot about 3" at 100 with M193 through a chrome lined 1/7 twist barrel. Although 855 tends to be tighter, I seem to hit ok with the lighter bullets.

Originally Posted By Orion67:Fact: The M855 in the 1/7 twist M4bbl is not a great performer. I did not say it didn't perform, I said not great. Reports like this came back from Somalia. Out of the 20"bbl it works better.

Fact: M855 is poor in the accuracy dept. out of the 1/12 twist. Try it in an SP1 and you'll notice the difference. I have passed up good deals on surplus ammo because at the time I only had my SP1.

Fact: M193 is poor in the accuracy dept. out of the 1/7 twist. I have seen this first hand when M855 was going to deployed FMF units and the last of the M193 was being shot up for Quals. Marines still got expert, but across the board aggregate scores were down.

Fact: Nobody gets to shoot as much live ammo anymore. I fired more live ammo as an Air Force Security Forces Reservist than I did as an Active Duty Marine 0311. That needs to change first.

We need some good, solid testing with multiple weights and twists, and figure out the best combination. 1/9 seems to have the edge here, but lets spend a few bucks and find out for sure.

Today we are in the sandbox, tomorrow we may be in rice paddies, jungle or snow covered mountains. If one size dont fit all, we damn well better have a back up.

You were in prior to the GWOT than because Marine units are shooting millions of rounds preparing for deployment.

Originally Posted By Orion67:Fact: The M855 in the 1/7 twist M4bbl is not a great performer. I did not say it didn't perform, I said not great. Reports like this came back from Somalia. Out of the 20"bbl it works better.

Proof? What reports? Besides a book where one, and only one person was quoted as saying it didn't perform well.

Originally Posted By GTLandser:This came from ... war gamer/simulation expert.

Damn straight! When I shoot guys with 30-06 they go down a lot faster than when I shoot them with the 30 Carbine. On Call of Duty that is. But that's real. I believe it is. And the 9mm sucks, the 45 ACP is much harder hitting. Don't have to shoot 'em as many times.

So get rid of that 66gr and give me a Garand. Hey, they weight the same as far as I can tell. And I can carry 200 rounds of each just as easy as pie.

Yep, war gaming, that's real stuff for sure. And the basis for policy and procurement opinions.

Originally Posted By pun:What ever happened to the blended metal round that a contractor used on an insurgent last year.The bullet hit him in the ass and destroyed everything inside him on his left side.The story was on this site.Screw the hague convention lets have an 80 grain hollowpoint purposely designed to fragment at what ever velocity..im sure the technology is there for that.

That same story is in The Black Rifle, but "contractor" is "advisor" and the "blended metal bullet" was just that newfangled M193...

Originally Posted By PopeLando:There are many factors at work which will continue to provide grist for many minds, but my pet idea is that we should have adopted .276 Pederson in 1932. We might very well still be using it, as it answers all the needs for today's battlefield, and many of those in between. Alas, as chief of staff, MacAurthur killed it with a penstroke. Perhaps an M14, Galil or FAL variant in .276 Pederson might be just the ticket.

Consider this: It has a .284, 140-grain bullet with the BCE nearly that of a Grendel, the taper necessary for AK reliability, a heavy rim for the same, and it has the range and a better flight plan than 7.62 NATO. You could stack 22 or more in a 20-round length magazine. Mild recoil, good penetration, good residual energy beyond the barrier, and a highly visible tracer: What's not to like?

Gentlemen of the forum, what are your thoughts on this mild theory?

PopeLando, can you give me any good links to the .276 Pederson info? I'm with ya. .280 Brit would have been a good choice, too, IMO. Either would have made a better general purpose round than 7.62x51 or 5.56x45 IMO.